About v2Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
+7
emack2
maestegmafia
beshocked
Effervescing Elephant
G2
dummy_half
disneychilly
11 posters
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Rugby Union
Page 1 of 1
Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by disneychilly Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:23 am
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/5271008/Tindall-warns-All-Blacks-of-English-challenge
Just saw this article. Just highlighted something to me in terms of expectations. I class NZ's and England's record in said tournament as identical. One from six which is pretty pants really. I know Tindall is talking in terms of expectation but England is a rich rugby nation and as such should be competitive enough to be disappointed with only one from six too.
Thoughts?
Just saw this article. Just highlighted something to me in terms of expectations. I class NZ's and England's record in said tournament as identical. One from six which is pretty pants really. I know Tindall is talking in terms of expectation but England is a rich rugby nation and as such should be competitive enough to be disappointed with only one from six too.
Thoughts?
disneychilly- Posts : 2156
Join date : 2011-03-23
Location : Dublin
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by dummy_half Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:41 am
disney
My thoughts are that you are stirring a little
More seriously, although rugby is a big participation sport in England, it has not historically had either the same competetiveness as in NZ nor the level of professionalism in its administration (Carling's 57 old farts comment was entirely apt). As such SCWs achievement in getting England to the summit of the game was better because this occurred in spite of difficulties placed in his way by the RFU and the clubs - only since 2006 or so has a sensible structure been in place to prioritise the international team and compensate the clubs, and in the one RWC subsequently we simply did not have a good enough team to win (and indeed reaching the final was an over-achievement courtesy of a relatively friendly draw and fine defence).
Unfortunately, I think this year's tournament has come a bit too soon for the current England team, who I think have the potential to be very good indeed but aren't yet battle hardened in the way that the ABs and SA particularly are, and so when the intensity goes really up in the later knock-out matches I think we'll come up a bit short (although another kind draw does give us a possibility of reaching the final - if we top the group, we have a good recent record against both France and Australia, so can go into those games with some confidence). We also simply aren't as talented as the current All Blacks first choice XV.
Historically, New Zealand have been a consistent power in world rugby, with only South Africa having a similarly strong tradition in the game. As such, the ABs record of only one RWC title is more of an anomaly than is England's record, although I still don't know how the 95 ABs didn't win that final.
Of course the bigger anomaly is that the Wallabies have two titles, which clearly exceeds their normal status in the rugby hierarchy, but this came from having two very good teams at either end of the 90s (noting there was some commonality between these two line-ups) and from them peaking at the right time.
My thoughts are that you are stirring a little
More seriously, although rugby is a big participation sport in England, it has not historically had either the same competetiveness as in NZ nor the level of professionalism in its administration (Carling's 57 old farts comment was entirely apt). As such SCWs achievement in getting England to the summit of the game was better because this occurred in spite of difficulties placed in his way by the RFU and the clubs - only since 2006 or so has a sensible structure been in place to prioritise the international team and compensate the clubs, and in the one RWC subsequently we simply did not have a good enough team to win (and indeed reaching the final was an over-achievement courtesy of a relatively friendly draw and fine defence).
Unfortunately, I think this year's tournament has come a bit too soon for the current England team, who I think have the potential to be very good indeed but aren't yet battle hardened in the way that the ABs and SA particularly are, and so when the intensity goes really up in the later knock-out matches I think we'll come up a bit short (although another kind draw does give us a possibility of reaching the final - if we top the group, we have a good recent record against both France and Australia, so can go into those games with some confidence). We also simply aren't as talented as the current All Blacks first choice XV.
Historically, New Zealand have been a consistent power in world rugby, with only South Africa having a similarly strong tradition in the game. As such, the ABs record of only one RWC title is more of an anomaly than is England's record, although I still don't know how the 95 ABs didn't win that final.
Of course the bigger anomaly is that the Wallabies have two titles, which clearly exceeds their normal status in the rugby hierarchy, but this came from having two very good teams at either end of the 90s (noting there was some commonality between these two line-ups) and from them peaking at the right time.
dummy_half- Posts : 6483
Join date : 2011-03-11
Age : 52
Location : East Hertfordshire
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by G2 Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:41 am
Interesting article Tindalls obviously been taking media lessons and learnt how to speak fluent BS
“Tindall says don't write off England's chances of making a third consecutive final and senses some momentum in the side on the back of their Six Nations success”
Ok however let’s not forget that the momentum was sort of stopped rather suddenly just over the Irish Sea.
“England defied the odds to reach the 2007 final but it proved that when you get to the knockout stages, anything can happen”
Agreed on both points but it doesn’t actually mean England will do well.
“He believes England's pre-World Cup success against the All Blacks in 2003 was instrumental to their title triumph where they beta the Wallabies in the final”
Fair enough but that was quite a while ago what relevance does it have now
“All the pressure this year is on hosts New Zealand”
Well d’ah, well spotted Mike I think we all missed that
“But with Martin Johnson in charge, we'll be the only squad with a World Cup-winner at the helm and we can beat them," Tindall told The Sun newspaper.”
Ah he was speaking to the Sun Newspaper that explains a lot
“We've beaten them down there before. Our set-up is good at the moment and Jonno is really coming into his own”
Hmmmm
"New Zealand are in good form, a great team with bags of quality. But we've seen that before with them ahead of World Cups and they don't have a great record in the tournament."
I think this was aimed at GG
"England do have a great record."
I’ll let others comment on this line
“Tindall says don't write off England's chances of making a third consecutive final and senses some momentum in the side on the back of their Six Nations success”
Ok however let’s not forget that the momentum was sort of stopped rather suddenly just over the Irish Sea.
“England defied the odds to reach the 2007 final but it proved that when you get to the knockout stages, anything can happen”
Agreed on both points but it doesn’t actually mean England will do well.
“He believes England's pre-World Cup success against the All Blacks in 2003 was instrumental to their title triumph where they beta the Wallabies in the final”
Fair enough but that was quite a while ago what relevance does it have now
“All the pressure this year is on hosts New Zealand”
Well d’ah, well spotted Mike I think we all missed that
“But with Martin Johnson in charge, we'll be the only squad with a World Cup-winner at the helm and we can beat them," Tindall told The Sun newspaper.”
Ah he was speaking to the Sun Newspaper that explains a lot
“We've beaten them down there before. Our set-up is good at the moment and Jonno is really coming into his own”
Hmmmm
"New Zealand are in good form, a great team with bags of quality. But we've seen that before with them ahead of World Cups and they don't have a great record in the tournament."
I think this was aimed at GG
"England do have a great record."
I’ll let others comment on this line
G2- Posts : 162
Join date : 2011-06-24
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by Effervescing Elephant Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:44 am
Sound bites for the masses. Nothing too revealing here.
Everyone seems to want to try and pile the pressure on to the ABs but for the life of me i don't see what they hope to achieve by it.
Our records are fairly similar so i don't see why Tinds is drawing attention to the fact. News gravy. Pass the boat.
Everyone seems to want to try and pile the pressure on to the ABs but for the life of me i don't see what they hope to achieve by it.
Our records are fairly similar so i don't see why Tinds is drawing attention to the fact. News gravy. Pass the boat.
Effervescing Elephant- Posts : 1629
Join date : 2011-03-25
Age : 48
Location : Exeter/Bristol/Brittany
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by beshocked Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:53 am
The new zealand rugby team is currently like Caroline Wozniaki in women's tennis.
Both no 1 in their respective sports but in the big tournaments can't quite go the full distance.
This is a joke by the way.
Both no 1 in their respective sports but in the big tournaments can't quite go the full distance.
This is a joke by the way.
beshocked- Posts : 14849
Join date : 2011-03-08
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by Guest Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:58 am
Any site using The Sun quotes as the basis for an article is scraping the barrel a little.
Guest- Guest
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by maestegmafia Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:00 am
disneychilly wrote:http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/5271008/Tindall-warns-All-Blacks-of-English-challenge
Just saw this article. Just highlighted something to me in terms of expectations. I class NZ's and England's record in said tournament as identical. One from six which is pretty pants really. I know Tindall is talking in terms of expectation but England is a rich rugby nation and as such should be competitive enough to be disappointed with only one from six too.
Thoughts?
In Rugby terms England really kicked into gear with the advent of World Cup Rugby, and apart from a few blips they have been a top five team since 1987. I think Tindall is right.
maestegmafia- Posts : 23145
Join date : 2011-03-05
Location : Glyncorrwg
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by disneychilly Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:06 am
No stirring meant it's not Friday afternoon haha.
Aussie's got the best sporting mentality in the world IMO and it doesn't surprise me one bit that they're up there in terms of peaking for the game's showpiece.
I don't think England's win in 03 has relevance now. It was the best English side ever and this one isn't the finished article yet. Surprised he didn't mention 73 too in that regard. He's clutching at straws there I feel in that England's won twice in NZ. Twice.
Johnno is finally getting some reward for his labour but I do think they are a little fresh for this one. They could prove me wrong as they are Aussie's bogey side and could well make the final if that goes to form. I expect England and Australia to be right in the mix in the next few years.
If hell froze over and NZ actually won it then they'd be first equal in terms of cups won. However the record still wouldn't be good enough in the eyes of the NZ rugby fan, and I'd say the ABs would use it as a springboard to get the WC stats more in line with the overall record. As we've seen though, easier said than done!
Aussie's got the best sporting mentality in the world IMO and it doesn't surprise me one bit that they're up there in terms of peaking for the game's showpiece.
I don't think England's win in 03 has relevance now. It was the best English side ever and this one isn't the finished article yet. Surprised he didn't mention 73 too in that regard. He's clutching at straws there I feel in that England's won twice in NZ. Twice.
Johnno is finally getting some reward for his labour but I do think they are a little fresh for this one. They could prove me wrong as they are Aussie's bogey side and could well make the final if that goes to form. I expect England and Australia to be right in the mix in the next few years.
If hell froze over and NZ actually won it then they'd be first equal in terms of cups won. However the record still wouldn't be good enough in the eyes of the NZ rugby fan, and I'd say the ABs would use it as a springboard to get the WC stats more in line with the overall record. As we've seen though, easier said than done!
disneychilly- Posts : 2156
Join date : 2011-03-23
Location : Dublin
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by beshocked Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:14 am
Disneychilly the difference between England and New Zealand in world cups is that New Zealand are normally always favourites to win.
The only time England have been the no 1 side in the world they won the world cup.
England exceeded expectations in 2007 by reaching the final. New Zealand did not and haven't lived up to expectations. The no 1 side should win.
Everyone knows New Zealand are the best side in the world. The problem is they don't perform well in the world cup in relation to their world cup ranking. Until New Zealand win the world cup more often there will always be criticism of their world cup pedigree.
The only time England have been the no 1 side in the world they won the world cup.
England exceeded expectations in 2007 by reaching the final. New Zealand did not and haven't lived up to expectations. The no 1 side should win.
Everyone knows New Zealand are the best side in the world. The problem is they don't perform well in the world cup in relation to their world cup ranking. Until New Zealand win the world cup more often there will always be criticism of their world cup pedigree.
beshocked- Posts : 14849
Join date : 2011-03-08
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by disneychilly Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:25 am
Beshocked that's a fallacy. Here's why.
87-Aussie won the Bledisloe in 86 and France turned NZ over that year too. Aussie were favourites to win.
91 Aussie stuffed us in Sydney and NZ had to rely on Eden Park being a bog and Fox to get a 6-3 win to retain the Bledisloe. NZ were on a downward spiral and Oz were clearly ascendant.
95 England knocked NZ over in 93, France won 2-0 in NZ in 94 and Australia won the Bledisloe in 94. I'd say there was no clear cut favourite then and if so it definitely wouldn't have been NZ.
99 Aussie won the Bledisloe and thumped NZ by 21 points in the last game. The winner of the France NZ semi got the prize of getting thumped by the best Aussie side ever IMO.
03 England and NZ as you said
07 NZ as you said.
You misunderstand that it's NZ's overall record that intimates favouritism every year and people don't pay enough attention to the form leading into it. It is a great thing though and if the ABs are ever not among the favourites then that would be possibly a death knell for the sport in NZ.
87-Aussie won the Bledisloe in 86 and France turned NZ over that year too. Aussie were favourites to win.
91 Aussie stuffed us in Sydney and NZ had to rely on Eden Park being a bog and Fox to get a 6-3 win to retain the Bledisloe. NZ were on a downward spiral and Oz were clearly ascendant.
95 England knocked NZ over in 93, France won 2-0 in NZ in 94 and Australia won the Bledisloe in 94. I'd say there was no clear cut favourite then and if so it definitely wouldn't have been NZ.
99 Aussie won the Bledisloe and thumped NZ by 21 points in the last game. The winner of the France NZ semi got the prize of getting thumped by the best Aussie side ever IMO.
03 England and NZ as you said
07 NZ as you said.
You misunderstand that it's NZ's overall record that intimates favouritism every year and people don't pay enough attention to the form leading into it. It is a great thing though and if the ABs are ever not among the favourites then that would be possibly a death knell for the sport in NZ.
disneychilly- Posts : 2156
Join date : 2011-03-23
Location : Dublin
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by Effervescing Elephant Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:04 pm
Think you've hit the nail on the head there Disney.
It's the perception that NZ are always the favourites.
Ask anyone, before a world cup, who is going to win it and without even looking at form most will say 'All Blacks' Straight away. (Then say "but they are perennial chokers").
It's a kind of back handed compliment that you are perceived as chokers as everyone (excepting perhaps yourselves) expect you to win it every time!
It's the perception that NZ are always the favourites.
Ask anyone, before a world cup, who is going to win it and without even looking at form most will say 'All Blacks' Straight away. (Then say "but they are perennial chokers").
It's a kind of back handed compliment that you are perceived as chokers as everyone (excepting perhaps yourselves) expect you to win it every time!
Effervescing Elephant- Posts : 1629
Join date : 2011-03-25
Age : 48
Location : Exeter/Bristol/Brittany
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by emack2 Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:39 pm
Right brothers prior to all the RWCS bar 2007 the All Blacks were beaten at least twice prior to the RWC by either Australia,[1987]1991][1999].France [1995] England [2003] .So the idea they were favourites apart from with
the bookies is ludicrous.
Especially 2003 when England had a 12 match unbeaten run Home and away against all the SH countries.
NZ`s record is certainly inferior to there overall record,and also to that of SA and Australia in a RWC these two only having a plus score against them/
As to the rest he is blowing in the wind,the AB`s RWC record is superior to any one except the two sides mentioned.
England have yet to beat NZ in a RWC,and may struggle to get out of there group.
Whatever happens in NZ`s group I cannot see them failing to reach the knock out stages.
the bookies is ludicrous.
Especially 2003 when England had a 12 match unbeaten run Home and away against all the SH countries.
NZ`s record is certainly inferior to there overall record,and also to that of SA and Australia in a RWC these two only having a plus score against them/
As to the rest he is blowing in the wind,the AB`s RWC record is superior to any one except the two sides mentioned.
England have yet to beat NZ in a RWC,and may struggle to get out of there group.
Whatever happens in NZ`s group I cannot see them failing to reach the knock out stages.
emack2- Posts : 3686
Join date : 2011-04-01
Age : 81
Location : Bournemouth
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by doctor_grey Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:59 pm
G2 wrote:“But with Martin Johnson in charge, we'll be the only squad with a World Cup-winner at the helm and we can beat them," Tindall told The Sun newspaper.”
Ah he was speaking to the Sun Newspaper that explains a lot
No, he was not speaking to The Sun. He was speaking to a mate on the phone and The Sun was listening.......
doctor_grey- Posts : 12279
Join date : 2011-04-30
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by nathan Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:12 pm
G2 wrote:Interesting article Tindalls obviously been taking media lessons and learnt how to speak fluent BS
“Tindall says don't write off England's chances of making a third consecutive final and senses some momentum in the side on the back of their Six Nations success”
Ok however let’s not forget that the momentum was sort of stopped rather suddenly just over the Irish Sea.
-They still won the tournament though so that's what he could mean as momentum, the six nations isnt just one game.
“England defied the odds to reach the 2007 final but it proved that when you get to the knockout stages, anything can happen”
Agreed on both points but it doesn’t actually mean England will do well.
-Nor does it mean they'll do bad!
“He believes England's pre-World Cup success against the All Blacks in 2003 was instrumental to their title triumph where they beta the Wallabies in the final”
Fair enough but that was quite a while ago what relevance does it have now
-Not much, but he's just saying what could happen.
“All the pressure this year is on hosts New Zealand”
Well d’ah, well spotted Mike I think we all missed that
“But with Martin Johnson in charge, we'll be the only squad with a World Cup-winner at the helm and we can beat them," Tindall told The Sun newspaper.”
Ah he was speaking to the Sun Newspaper that explains a lot
-Mean half these quotes have probably been taken out of context! lol
“We've beaten them down there before. Our set-up is good at the moment and Jonno is really coming into his own”
Hmmmm
"New Zealand are in good form, a great team with bags of quality. But we've seen that before with them ahead of World Cups and they don't have a great record in the tournament."
I think this was aimed at GG
- Oh dear Tindell, Why did you do this!! lol
"England do have a great record."
I’ll let others comment on this line
- In RWC's they do.
nathan- Posts : 11033
Join date : 2011-06-14
Location : Leicestershire
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by The_Hound_of_Harrow Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:27 am
Nathan - no comment to make on your requote of G2's post?
I have. Irish dismissal of England's chances this year is based on yet another win over England in the 6N. The one game that they ever really get up for. The RWC is a different beast, and I've often said that the protection of Irish and Welsh players for HC games during the domestic season will always mitigate against having players who are battle hardened enough to do well in the competition. Scotland have always made the quarters with far fewer players, but they are more used to playing rugby every weekend.
We'll see what transpires. Ireland have a very good side at the moment, but how many 'rallying' speeches does Paul O'Connell have?
I have. Irish dismissal of England's chances this year is based on yet another win over England in the 6N. The one game that they ever really get up for. The RWC is a different beast, and I've often said that the protection of Irish and Welsh players for HC games during the domestic season will always mitigate against having players who are battle hardened enough to do well in the competition. Scotland have always made the quarters with far fewer players, but they are more used to playing rugby every weekend.
We'll see what transpires. Ireland have a very good side at the moment, but how many 'rallying' speeches does Paul O'Connell have?
The_Hound_of_Harrow- Posts : 454
Join date : 2011-05-18
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by offload Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:41 am
The four teams that have won the WC have been the best 4 teams in the world over the last 25 years. That England have made 3 finals out of 6 can't be discounted. Statistically, SA have the best record having won it twice in 4 attempts. then Australia, NZ and England. Given the dominance of NZ rugby in this time period it's fair to say that their WC record is the biggest anomaly.
IMO it's extremely unlikely that a team outside these 4 will win it this year, very unlikely that the winner won't be from the SH and unlikely not be wearing a black shirt!
IMO it's extremely unlikely that a team outside these 4 will win it this year, very unlikely that the winner won't be from the SH and unlikely not be wearing a black shirt!
offload- Posts : 2292
Join date : 2011-02-14
Age : 107
Location : On t'internet
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by emack2 Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:55 am
The problem for me is 5 sides dominate the RWC,the others sides don`t consistently perform as they do outside it.
One can suggest added pressure,or the fact that tier2 sides only have there strongest sides at a RWC.
In theory ALL the top 8 sides [3Ns,plus 5Ns] should reach the knockout stages every time but they seldom do.
Although I dislike RWCs because especially some NH fans only consider RWC matches as important.
I don`t want to see a cosy little club where only the same 3 or 4 win everything.Or here England supporters banging endlessly about 2003 as Soccer fans do about 1996.
One can suggest added pressure,or the fact that tier2 sides only have there strongest sides at a RWC.
In theory ALL the top 8 sides [3Ns,plus 5Ns] should reach the knockout stages every time but they seldom do.
Although I dislike RWCs because especially some NH fans only consider RWC matches as important.
I don`t want to see a cosy little club where only the same 3 or 4 win everything.Or here England supporters banging endlessly about 2003 as Soccer fans do about 1996.
emack2- Posts : 3686
Join date : 2011-04-01
Age : 81
Location : Bournemouth
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by maestegmafia Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:56 am
Only when you judge this in the world cup results. And isnt that kind of the point.offload wrote:The four teams that have won the WC have been the best 4 teams in the world over the last 25 years. That England have made 3 finals out of 6 can't be discounted. Statistically, SA have the best record having won it twice in 4 attempts. then Australia, NZ and England. Given the dominance of NZ rugby in this time period it's fair to say that their WC record is the biggest anomaly.
IMO it's extremely unlikely that a team outside these 4 will win it this year, very unlikely that the winner won't be from the SH and unlikely not be wearing a black shirt!
France have had better results than England over 20 years in the Six/Five Nations, Ireland and France have been better than England over the last ten years.
New Zealand have had 48 wins out of 68 games in the tri nations, compared to Aus 27 and SA 26. That is almost double the wins.
maestegmafia- Posts : 23145
Join date : 2011-03-05
Location : Glyncorrwg
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by emack2 Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:34 am
It is EXACTLY the point teams outside RWCs performing consistently but not doing so in RWCs.
While fans are content to say it does`nt matter if we have bad runs because we do all right in RWC`s it wont improve.
England deservedly won in 2003 at the time they were World number one,No way were the All Blacks favourite forit,
Then we had 4 years of drifting excuses,getting rid of coaches,surprisingly they at least make the final in 2007.
Then another period of drifting,NOW the future looks more solid a young team performing,a vigourous A, and Junior side things are looking up.
BUT if they have a reasonable RWC then start drifting again that is unfor giveable.
A foreign legion is not required,there is more players and resources in England than any other Country.
It is time another dynasty arose like those of Geoff Cooke,Jack Rowell and SCW.
But don`t be surprised if it does`nt happen this year,Rome was`nt built in a day.
While fans are content to say it does`nt matter if we have bad runs because we do all right in RWC`s it wont improve.
England deservedly won in 2003 at the time they were World number one,No way were the All Blacks favourite forit,
Then we had 4 years of drifting excuses,getting rid of coaches,surprisingly they at least make the final in 2007.
Then another period of drifting,NOW the future looks more solid a young team performing,a vigourous A, and Junior side things are looking up.
BUT if they have a reasonable RWC then start drifting again that is unfor giveable.
A foreign legion is not required,there is more players and resources in England than any other Country.
It is time another dynasty arose like those of Geoff Cooke,Jack Rowell and SCW.
But don`t be surprised if it does`nt happen this year,Rome was`nt built in a day.
emack2- Posts : 3686
Join date : 2011-04-01
Age : 81
Location : Bournemouth
Re: Difference in philosophy-Mike Tindall
by disneychilly Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:25 am
Ha doctor grey that's gold.
disneychilly- Posts : 2156
Join date : 2011-03-23
Location : Dublin
Similar topics» Can Mike Tindall Count?
» Mike Tindall in the news again!
» Mike Tindall!!
» Mike Tindall Retires
» Mike Tindall in Coup Bid
» Mike Tindall in the news again!
» Mike Tindall!!
» Mike Tindall Retires
» Mike Tindall in Coup Bid
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Rugby Union
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum